Will the voters channel their furor at this regime of lies
into an unprecedented turnout at the polls in November?
By: Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness
May 8, 2022
A large majority of Americans now have no confidence in Joe Biden and his administration, which often polls below 40 percent, with negatives nearing 60 percent.
Despite the 15-month catastrophe of his regime, the level of his unpopularity remains understandable but still remarkable. After all, in 2020 voters already knew well of his cognitive deficits and the radicalism of his agenda. They saw both clearly starting in 2019 and during the 2020 Democratic primaries, the primary debates, and the general election.
So what did Biden’s voters imagine would happen when a cognitively challenged president, controlled by hard-Left subordinates, entered office—other than what he has done?
Now, as then, the media is fused to the progressive agenda and does—and did—its best to turn a non-compos mentis Biden into a bite-your-lip centrist empath in the Bill Clinton “I feel your pain” mode.
The American people know that on every occasion their president speaks, he will slur his words at best. At worst, he will have little idea where he is, where he has been, or what he is supposed to be saying or doing. When he is momentarily cognizant, he is at his meanest, or he simply makes things up.
Our new normal of a mentally incapacitated president is not entirely new in American history—Woodrow Wilson was an invalid during the last months of his presidency. But Wilson’s condition was well hidden. Quite novel is the idea that the American people know the man in the White House is cognitively disabled and simply expect him to confirm that bleak diagnosis each time he opens his mouth.
If Donald Trump exaggerated, Biden flat out lies daily. His most recent untruth was his assertion that the MAGA movement represents “the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history.” Biden cannot really believe that roughly half the country is now more dangerous than Antifa, Black Lives Matter, the Weathermen, the American Nazi Party, the American Communist Party, and the Ku Klux Klan. And this comes from the mythically moderate “good old Joe from Scranton”?
The bullied people also know the Biden problem has no remedy. The 25th Amendment that Democrats and the Left raised nonstop in efforts to remove Trump—from the Rosenstein-McCabe wear-a-wire embarrassment and former Yale psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee’s congressional tomfoolery to the incessant Montreal Cognitive Assessment demands—won’t apply to Biden.
Either the media will continue to rebrand his incapacity as Ciceronian eloquence or it will privately gloat that Kamala Harris is so off-putting, so uninformed, so unpopular that the people would prefer an amnesiac Biden to a nonimpaired Harris. The truth is the three doyens of Democratic progressivism—Joe Biden, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)—all struggle with cognitive decline and rely heavily upon the media and the Democratic Party’s political attack machine to enjoy asymmetrical exemption. (Though, in Feinstein’s case, her support is wavering.)
Americans feel there is no remedy for this downward spiral until November. To get a sense of their dilemma, imagine a Richard Nixon in 1973 caught lying during Watergate but with Spiro Agnew waiting in the wings without a trace of scandal—except with one difference: the current media is now attacking not the president’s shortcomings, but the president’s critics who point them out.
Even if the Republicans were to win a 60-vote majority in the Senate, they would hesitate to impeach Biden simply because Harris is a more frightening prospect. And some Marquess of Queensberry centrist RINOs would not wish to codify the Democrats’ new standard of impeaching an opposition president the minute he loses the House of Representatives in his first midterm.
Most of the country has awakened to the fact that the Trump-Russia collusion story was essentially a Hillary Clinton campaign effort to destroy a political opponent, a presidential transition, and a presidency. And they know Clinton will never be indicted for her conspiracies and racketeering even if her minions rat her out to seek reduced charges for themselves.
That hoax was followed by an impeachment vote over a phone call based on two more lies:
1) the Biden family was neither corrupt nor used Joe Biden’s office as vice president, and his future political career to leverage payments from Ukraine, and
2) Donald Trump canceled military aid to Ukraine rather than sending them critical Javelin anti-tank missiles put on hold by the Obama Administration.
Americans know Google, Facebook, and Twitter censors were all enlisted in the effort to destroy a former president and his outspoken supporters. And they know there is no real remedy unless two or three more enlightened billionaires follow Elon Musk’s lead.
If Roe v. Wade were to be repealed, many Americans in red states will remain appalled that some blue states will allow abortions, especially late-term abortions after 22 weeks. But nearly all will accept the rule of constitutional democracy and thus the states’ rights to make their own laws that do not conflict with federal legislation as passed by Congress and signed by the president.
These red-state citizens know the opposite is certainly not true: blue state officials will do all they can to attack those who disagree with them, who consider abortion the destruction of human life in the womb. Expect more California-style official travel bans.
Americans know that the Department of Homeland Security’s new “Disinformation Governance Board” will, by design, be run by an arch-disinformationist Nina Jankowicz. The board’s entire purpose is to coordinate with the media to brand oppositional expressions as “hate speech” and “mis-, dis-, and mal-information” so that critics preemptively self-censor and moderate their opposition.
In this regard, they know that the Biden regime awards positions of great power in the U.S. government to those who do the very opposite of the intended offices’ purview. The goal is pure nihilism.
Thus, a mythographer and propagandist will adjudicate “truth.” A homeland security secretary will do his best to make the border entirely insecure. The secretary of transportation will see to it that freeways and bridges are not built. The department of energy’s task will be to ensure less energy is produced and its transportation is more expensive and more dangerous than ever. And the secretary of defense will oversee the most humiliating retreat in modern American history in Afghanistan as he cites our chief existential threat to be either climate change or “white supremacists.”
The people know the Left eventually always loses the support of the voters. But leftists still believe they can achieve and retain power, given that they control America’s cultural and informational institutions.
The Left remains hell-bent on radically changing the demography of the United States. And it always manufactures new hysterias—from the claim that Trump was “100 percent responsible” for every American death during the COVID-19 pandemic, to border officers “whipping” innocent illegal aliens, to Vladimir Putin single-handedly causing sky-high gas prices and the worst inflation since the 1970s. Each week brings another prairie fire hysteria. No sooner than it is exposed and refuted, and the Left is on to another conflagration.
Americans have a rough idea that the tragic death of George Floyd was not proof of an epidemic of lethal police shootings of black males. Yet that single death set off the entire woke conflagration of 2020 and, with the hysterias of the lockdowns, has nearly wrecked the country.
Yet in 2021, out of more than 10 million arrests in the United States, police shot about six unarmed black men. The same year, 346 police officers were shot, 63 fatally—to left-wing indifference. Moreover, roughly 8,000 blacks were murdered mostly by other blacks—to callous media and political silence. Thousands of lost black lives mattered little—except the fewer than 1 in 1,000 of that total who were tragically and lethally shot while unarmed by police.
Finally, Americans were angry at the rioting inside the Capitol on January 6, 2021. But they cannot forgive the needless lies surrounding that illegal act in an effort to fabricate an insurrection out of a spontaneous buffoonish riot.
So they recoil at the lies about Officer Brian Sicknick’s death. They are baffled about the silence surrounding the number of FBI informants among the January 6 protestors. They are angry about the lies surrounding the lethal shooting of an unarmed Ashli Babbitt. They don’t understand the refusal to release all videos or communications pertinent to the government’s reaction to the riot. And they do not fathom the disproportionate treatment of those charged with unlawfully entering the Capitol versus those 14,000 arrested during the summer of 2020 when rioting led to more than 35 deaths, some 1,500 police officer injuries, and $2 billion in property damage and massive looting.
They shake their heads when Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) directly threatened two Supreme Court Justices by name outside the court, ginning up an angry protest group at the doors. They are baffled that the White House press secretary sees nothing wrong with disseminating the private addresses of Justices to ensure mobs of protestors show up at their homes to intimidate them.
Of course, exasperated Americans are furious over the open border. They are angry their lives are being insidiously destroyed by the Biden inflation and energy prices. They are humiliated by the Biden debacle in Afghanistan and angrier still over his spiking crime wave and his mean-spirited senility. They resent Biden’s efforts to blame all these self-inflicted miseries on Donald Trump, or the “Putin price hikes” or the inability of a presidency to do anything about supposedly organic forces beyond his purview.
But behind the popular furor is a sense of impotence in the face of the untruth they are assaulted with day after day. In other words, bullied Americans are angry that people who control the nation’s institutions deliberately mislead them and do so because they hate them.
Let us hope that they channel this historic exasperation in November in a manner we have never seen before in the modern era.
Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, retired Cardinal Bishop of Hong Kong and one of the world’s leading human rights activists, was arrested on Wednesday evening in Hong Kong along with three others. The four arrested were trustees of the “612 Humanitarian Relief Fund,” an organization that helps Hong Kong democracy activists pay their legal fees. Zen and the others were arrested for “collusion with foreign forces,” an offense which is part of a new security law instituted last year by Beijing to crack down on growing pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. They were later released on bail.
The arrest of a prominent Cardinal by the Chinese government raises some uncomfortable and delicate questions about the cozy relationship that Pope Francis’s Vatican has fostered with Beijing. In addition, one has to wonder if Zen’s own strained relationship with the pope—due in part to that close Rome/Beijing relationship—will result in a muted response from the Vatican about this outrageous act by the Chinese government.
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
Joseph Zen was born in Shanghai but fled to Hong Kong to escape Communist rule at the end of the Chinese Civil War. After 35 years as a priest, he was named the coadjutor Bishop of Hong Kong in 1996 by Pope John Paul II. He became the Bishop of that city upon the death of Cardinal John Baptist Wu in 2002, was named a Cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006, and then retired from the See in 2009.
Zen has been outspoken throughout his life about the Chinese government’s human rights violations, which of course has put him in Beijing’s crosshairs. Perhaps more surprisingly, however, is that this principled stand has in recent years put him at odds with the Vatican.
For decades relations between the Vatican and Beijing were strained over a number of issues, the first being the appointment of Chinese bishops. Since the establishment of the Communist Party in China in 1949, Catholics in the country were split into two groups: an underground Church in communion with the pope (and with bishops appointed by the pope) and a government-supported “Patriotic Catholic Association” which named its own bishops without input from Rome.
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
Until the pontificate of Francis, no solution to this dual setup could be negotiated between Rome and Beijing. But in 2018 the two parties signed an agreement in which the selection of bishops would be jointly decided by the pope and the Chinese government. Immediately after the deal’s announcement, Cardinal Zen condemned it, saying that the Vatican was “giving the flock into the mouths of the wolves.”
Since then Cardinal Zen has been a thorn in Francis’s side, as he continues to advocate for the rights of Chinese Catholics in the face of the Vatican’s capitulation to Beijing. In October 2020 Zen traveled to Rome for the purpose of urging Francis to appoint a bishop of Hong Kong who, in Zen’s words, could be “trusted by the people.” However, the pope refused to meet with Zen and the Cardinal had to return home to Hong Kong empty-handed.
Since that failed meeting Zen has not slowed down. His involvement in the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund is just one of many human rights activities for the 90-year-old cleric. He has been outspoken in his criticism of the pope, even lamenting Traditiones Custodis, the apostolic letter restricting the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass.
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
Zen’s work has made living in Hong Kong dangerous. He considered leaving the city for the safety of Italy, but did want to abandon his people.
Now that Cardinal Zen has been arrested, all eyes turn to Rome. The relationship between Cardinal Zen and Pope Francis is clearly strained, but will the pope let their differences—and his deal with Beijing—mute his duty and obligation to support a prince of the Church?
As of this writing the Vatican has only stated that “The Holy See has learned with concern the news of Cardinal Zen’s arrest and is following the development of the situation with extreme attention.”
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
While initial statements are often short on details, let’s hope that the Vatican does more than just “follow” this situation, but rather acts quickly in Cardinal Zen’s defense.
If the Vatican doesn’t vigorously act to demand the immediate acquittal of Cardinal Zen—along with those arrested with him—it will set a terrible precedent. When even a Cardinal of the Church is not immune from a politically-motivated arrest by the Chinese government, what is the purpose of any deal or agreement between Rome and Beijing? The worse Zen is treated, the more obvious it becomes that the Vatican is just the lapdog of Beijing.
Further, if the Vatican does not protest strenuously against Zen’s treatment—even to the point of terminating its agreement with Beijing—then it’s open season on all Chinese Catholics. Any illusion that the 2018 agreement would protect the rights of Chinese Catholics to freely practice their religion would disappear. As Cardinal Zen predicted, it would be handing the flock over to the wolves.
What can we ordinary Catholics do to help Cardinal Zen? First, we must pray and fast for the courageous Cardinal and all persecuted Chinese Catholics. Let’s flood Heaven for this brave witness to the Faith and advocate for the dignity of all men and women.
We can also contact our bishop, the papal nuncio, and even the Vatican directly and insist they do everything in their power to protect the rights of Cardinal Zen and other Chinese Catholics. No political agreement is more important than the rights and freedoms of persecuted Catholics. The pope and the Vatican must be made to see that their snug relationship with Beijing is being exposed right now, and they will have to choose a side.
Hong Kong authorities arrested Cardinal Joseph Zen today, and he is being held on suspicion of “colluding with foreign forces to endanger China’s national security.” (Video in article)
Cardinal Zen is one of the few voices in the Catholic hierarchy to publicly challenge Pope Francis’s secret deal with the Chinese Communist Party. As former Bishop of Hong Kong, Zen recently traveled to the Vatican to try to discuss this with Pope Francis, but his efforts proved futile when Francis refused to give him a hearing.
He was well aware of the risks he was taking, and now the 90-year-old Catholic hero has been thrown in jail for speaking out.
This news reminds us not to dismiss as temporary or “no big deal” the lockdown on humanity in which the CCP has been engaging in China in general but especially in Shanghai.
So the question is: As Christians come under ruthless persecution in China, why is Pope Francis making secret deals with a Chinese Communist Party that is responsible for throwing even Catholic bishops in prison?
What is it going to take for the Catholic world to finally admit that Team Francis is playing for the other side?
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on JORGE BERGOLIO STRIKES AGAIN
charliej373May 11Baby Brother – by Holly CallieBy Charlie JohnstonI have engaged in discussion the last few days with some pro-abortion folks on Twitter. It has been simultaneously frustrating, enlightening and a little heartening. Some friends say it won’t be long before Twitter bans me for some bit of fact they don’t like. We’ll see. The winds of change are blowing there, but the deal has not yet been consummated.The conversation is frustrating because of the enormous amount of logical fallacies, misinformation, ad hominems, and bald assertions masquerading as facts or evidence coming from that side. I linked to a Yahoo News Item (NOT a conservative site) to provide video of hysterical protesters in front of Supreme Court Justices homes and the response from several was a disdainful, “Oh that video is from Fox News.” What?! So prejudiced against Fox News that they will not even look at video proof if it has appeared on the Fox Network?! That approaches invincible ignorance. The only problem that the left can possibly have with Fox is that it is moderately conservative, not that it is inaccurate. Over the last six years, Fox has proven to be far more accurate than CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the establishment media – so the left’s aversion to Fox is just a visceral emotion rather than a considered decision. (I was kind of amused because I have more than a few problems with Fox, myself, but lefties generally don’t get nuance. Their narrative is that conservatives are racist, misogynist, redneck watchers of Fox News and NASCAR races. It is a bigoted caricature rather than an effort to understand any arguments.) While it is frustrating to me, it is crippling to those so afflicted. What you don’t know will, indeed, ultimately hurt you.It gave me a key insight into something that has puzzled me for over a decade. Back when I was doing heavy politics, one of the things I was valued for was my ability to get into the minds of the opponents and figure out what course they would likely take. About a year into the Obama presidency that ability started taking a steep nosedive. I just couldn’t figure out what they were thinking. The thing was that back in the day, most conservatives and most liberals (not all) worked from a set of foundational principles. Their actions would differ based on their interpretive prism – but those actions were in service to their principles, and so they were coherent. Modern leftists (and some conservatives) have appetites – and their principles are only of use in service to their current appetites. That is why a month ago leftists were passionately opining that you had to be a biologist to know what a woman is and that men could get pregnant – while now they passionately opine that you must be a woman to have a say on abortion, at all. Their current appetite changed – and so did their principles. For genuine conservatives (and genuine liberals of 30 years ago) principles are pylons sunk into bedrock to serve as the foundation of the intellectual and philosophical structure they build atop it. For leftists, principles are just gear in their toolbox, to be casually taken up and set aside as their appetites demand. The latter approach is inevitably arbitrary and capricious, without any consistent coherence. This is why I cannot easily predict their course: there is no intellectual foundation on their side from which to work. One simply has to hypothesize where their appetites will take them next. Since their appetites are arbitrary and capricious, that is not as reliable as working with an actual intellectual foundation. One side has malleable actions in service to their principles; the other has malleable ‘principles’ in service to their appetites.Even so, the interactions gave me some heart. Most people simply no longer have the tools they need to do serious critical thinking. This is why so many want to abrogate their responsibility as a free citizen to an ‘expert,’ usually someone as uninformed as they are but with a credential. Philosophy has been seriously impoverished since the Enlightenment 300 years ago. It still bears occasional nuggets of insight, but is largely superficial and shallow – when it does not entirely engage in building castles in the air. Ironically in this age of “reason,” the best philosophy comes from serious theology (though I must concede that some of the worst modern philosophy comes from crackpot theologians). As my friend, Eschatologist Desmond Birch often says, most modern problems are the result of bad philosophy. Add to that the entire collapse of emphasis on evidence, logic and reason in the academy of ‘higher’ and lower learning and you have a whole generation of people who won participation medals without learning or having to seriously strive to actually win much of anything. They come to intellectual debate almost entirely unarmed with any facts or consistent logic. So it is not entirely surprising that they should seek to make every controversy a contest of will and raw, often, violent power. They are incapable of any other sort of discourse.So how can I be heartened? Despite the lack of factual evidence or the needed discipline for logical inquiry, some of them genuinely want to seek the good. They have simply been deprived of the necessary tools to do so with any precision by several generations of deficient – and often malicious – pedagogues. Unless they are gifted auto-didacts, it is unlikely that they can suddenly develop clear, consistent, and precise ways of thinking to build a solid foundation of coherent principles, either conservative or liberal (NOT leftist – which is profoundly anti-intellectual). Over the years I have had some very warm friendships with bona fide (and even prominent) liberals. Perhaps the most prominent was the late Sen. Adlai Stevenson III. We had some lively, intriguing conversations but that was because we both understood the basic foundational rules of actual facts, evidence and consistent logic. That can no longer be assumed. One time, I was charged with briefing a colleague who was going to meet with a prominent public figure who had been mixed and muddled on the issue of abortion. Suddenly it dawned on me that what my colleague should do was to focus on the basics – that we in the pro-life movement often assumed others to have far more basic knowledge on the subject than they actually do. My friend thought that was an inspired idea – and went with it. After the meeting, he called me and told me with some astonishment that he thought we had a real convert. Turns out the public figure had a top advisor with him, who confirmed all the factual information. The man got mad midway through – not at my colleague, but that he had been played for so long. So I think it may well be time to go back to some basics and fundamentals – not just making our case, but explaining the basis on which we come to it. There are some people we can never reach. They live like an exposed nerve and get some weird excitement out of raging all the time, even at the price of constant misery. A good chunk of those we can reach will still disagree, but will at least do so on more solid intellectual ground and tone down the desperate emotional angst. But some, given the tools for critical, rational thinking, will have a genuine conversion experience like the public figure I mentioned. I am not too naive, I don’t think. Certainly, the majority of the left love their ad hominems and non sequiturs, thinking it brilliant when it doesn’t even rise to the level of rank sophistry. But there is a small remnant of people there who want to find the good and live it rather than just slavishly work to protect their own perceived privilege and power.Since most of the discussions I reference have happened on Twitter – where it is difficult to make a sustained and nuanced discussion of any depth, I am going to apply the technique to the issue of abortion next. This is just a cursory examination – but it is a start.********* The only question that matters in the abortion debate is whether or not the fetus is a human person. If he is, he is entitled to the rights that all other persons are. If not, he is not entitled to any of the rights other persons are. Until that question is answered, everything else is a distraction and a deflection.Both science and orthodox Christian theology are in lockstep that the fetus IS a fully human person at an early stage of development. A very few avant-garde philosophers disagree, but they get into some very strange corners – such as Peter Singer who often argues that a mother should have a “right” to terminate her child up until it is a year old.Despite this, a whole host of deflecting arguments are raised that cannot stand the most basic test of examination. The first is that abortion is a woman’s right. That fails to understand what a right is and who can guarantee a right. The rights embedded in our Constitution are based in natural law theory. They precede the existence of the state and cannot be revoked. They are granted by God or, if you will, by natural law. That the founders chose this basis was subtle genius for several reasons. First, whoever grants a “right” can also revoke it. Thus, any right granted by a government would be insecure and subject to the transient whims of that government. If you believe that the state is the grantor of rights, you may protest when it revokes it, but you have no grounds to complain that they have done anything untoward whether you agree with the result or not. He who grants a right has authority to revoke it. This is why the very idea of a government granting rights founds those rights on sand. Acknowledging that all genuine rights exist with the person before the existence of the state both secures individual rights and establishes a demanding test for the legitimacy of any government. A government that does not defend actual rights is, prima facie, illegitimate.What governments can grant are indulgences, privileges and entitlements. But again, these can be legitimately revoked by the same authority that granted them in the first place. You may want universal health care, but it cannot be a right because it is not something endowed to you before the very existence of a government. You may vote for – or a sovereign may decree – universal health care, but the same can be repealed by another vote or the contrary whim of the sovereign. It is not the same thing as a right, which cannot be legitimately impinged upon by any person or state.The only limits to rights are if one person’s right impinges upon that of another person. Thus, I have the right to freely swing my arm at will, but that right ends at the tip of another’s nose. No one has the right to deprive another of any of their rights except with due process of law for criminal behavior. There are some areas that seem to obviate this, such as the doctrine of eminent domain, which allows a unit of government to forcibly take a person’s land without their approval – but even this can only be done for a compelling public good following due process and with just compensation. The fundamental doctrine is that no person or institution may do violence to the rights of another person. Thus, if a fetus is a human person, as both science and orthodox Christian theology agree, then no other person has the right to deprive him of his fundamental right to life. That means neither the father nor the mother – nor anyone else – can legitimately deprive that unborn person of his rights, for there can be no right to deny the rights of another innocent person or class of persons.A spokesman for a pro-abortion institute once argued with me when I had him on my Chicago radio show that we could all just agree that, in this case, life begins at birth – and that would solve the problem. It does not. Philosophical principles must be coherent and consistent or they can be expanded or contracted in arbitrary and capricious ways that, ultimately, can target the very person arguing for an arbitrary definition. Arbitrary definitions always begin the slide away from the rule of law and towards the raw will to power.A few examples:State of development. If you argue that there are some states of development before or after which a person is not entitled to human rights, what is to prevent anyone from extending that state of development before which a person can be lawfully killed? In Peter Singer’s case he advocates for obvious sentience – which could extend to a year or more after birth. What if the standard was extended to the capacity for independence? Then you could euthanize some healthy teenagers. What principle could limit this standard from being extended if a sufficient number of the body politic – or if the sovereign – decided to extend it? It is building on sand – and quicksand, at that.Dependence. There is no doubt that an unborn child has a unique and complete dependence on its mother that can be a real burden on the mother, particularly if she is unhappy with the situation. This is often used as justification for abortion, usually by arguing that a baby has no right to life unless he is “wanted.” Take care again. Given this standard, on what basis do we prosecute women who have killed their born children? Clearly the children were now unwanted. Going further, how do we protect anyone who is in a position of dependence on another? Follow this argument to its logical conclusion and relationships between mankind simply become a complicated form of animal husbandry – with the shepherd’s hold on his dominant position ever in peril. There are safe alternatives to this. In another age, the way to prevent such an unwanted dependence was through contraceptives or abstinence. What a general abortion regime demands is that no one exercise any self-restraint or accept any consequences for that lack of self-restraint. That is not a “right;” simply a demand for absolute, unchecked privilege over another human being.Interest. It is often argued that fulfilling the demands of pregnancy imposes an intolerable burden on a woman’s interests – delaying schooling, impeding her career or other such arguments – all of which are an argument against interest. Yet if you posit that there are circumstances when one person can freely kill another person because that person impedes the interests of the first person, you have set out on a slippery slope that ultimately ends in the decriminalization of homicide. It would make for a hitman’s paradise. These are just a few of the philosophical conundrums one gets into when trying to justify abortion on demand.Whenever one group of people sets out on a course of genocide against some other class of people, the instigators insistently work to dehumanize those they would exterminate – and studiously try to avoid and deflect from the key question: the humanity or lack thereof of their proposed victims.Even the slogans adopted by such movements are designed to deflect from that question. Peruse the Congressional Records of the 1850’s – particularly of the senate, and you will be shocked at the familiarity of the slogans to today’s pro-abortion slogans. “Don’t agree with slavery? Don’t buy one,” southern senators often taunted their northern colleagues., completely dismissing any question of the humanity of the enslaved. Southern officials often tried to argue that northerners had no say over the matter at all since they could not own slaves and were not affected by it. This subtly ignores the humanity of the enslaved by arguing that only those who were directly involved – who were perpetuating the peculiar institution – were allowed to have a say at all, thus hoping to completely bar those who would speak for the enslaved from speaking at all. For many decades, the two camps lived in uneasy tolerance of each other, but then the Dred Scott decision forced northerners to help enable and protect slavery as well as southerners. It is equivalent to the Roe v Wade decision in our own time, which forced all states to allow abortions, whether the people of the state agreed or not. The American founders had limited slavery to those states which had it at the founding, in hope that it would ultimately die out of its own accord. But the advocates of slavery insisted that it was the divine right of every white man who wanted to own a slave – and they desperately wanted to expand it. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 sought to give power to the individual states under the doctrine of “popular sovereignty” as articulated by Illinois Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas. Of course, it was another effort to elide the question of the humanity of the people enslaved entirely – as they would have no say in the matter whatever. “Let the people decide,” was Douglas’ cry – except, of course, for the people who were most affected, black people. It was the 1850’s version of the “pro-choice” mantra of let the woman decide. On a question of humanity and human rights, ALL people have a say.In the immediate aftermath of Roe v Wade, there was no talk of a woman’s right to choose. Abortion, according to advocates, was just the removal of an undifferentiated clump of tissue with no moral dimension at all. I must concede that I was naïve about this. I thought that as time and scientific advances demonstrated the humanity of the unborn, the advocates of abortion would step back from the abyss to which they had led us. To my horror, in 1982 (or it might have been ’83 – early in the Reagan administration) Planned Parenthood recognized that their “clump of tissue” argument was no longer…ahem…viable because of the rise of ultrasound technology. They sent out a confidential memo to their affiliates advising them to abandon the “clump of tissue” argument and start describing abortion as a “woman’s right,” in order to protect their business model.Margaret Sanger, the pioneering founder of Planned Parenthood, was an enthusiastic progressive advocate of eugenics, using ‘science’ to purify human stock. She set up her first clinics in predominately black neighborhoods, instructing acolytes to use black ministers to advocate for the program in order to keep word from getting out that their aim was to “exterminate the black population.” She spoke to a lively and welcoming group of a women’s chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey. She was an enthusiastic supporter of the eugenics agenda of Hitler’s Germany, publishing an article entitled, “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need” in her April, 1933 edition of Birth Control Review (the original version of Planned Parenthood’s magazine}, penned by Ernst Rudin, Hitler’s Director of Genetic Sterilization.The issue hits me viscerally. As a boy, in the mid-60’s, long before Roe v Wade, I had a terrible nightmare. In the dream, my then best friends’ mother had taken us to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. At one point, screams broke out and she came and helped us to hide, telling us that they were putting the children to the knife. I asked her why someone didn’t call the police – and she told me the police were helping them. I was sweating profusely when I woke – and almost 60 years later, the dream still sometimes haunts me.When I was doing radio in Chicago during the 90’s, abortion was a frequent topic. For a time, various abortion groups organized a letter-writing campaign in hopes of getting me fired – and had assigned people to monitor my show. A large part of my abortion coverage was quoting verbatim sections of Sanger’s book, “The Pivot of Civilization,” the most disgusting and vile thing I have ever read. (Sample quote: “ The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”) I urged listeners not to take my word for it, but find the book in a big library and take Sanger’s word for it. Amusingly, though the station had no intention of firing me, the harassment stopped after several of the abortion groups’ volunteer monitors took my advice, got the book and read it for themselves – and left the abortion industry. During this time a strange phenomenon took hold. Three or four times a week I would get phone calls from random women who had had an abortion and never told anyone – and wanted to talk to me about it. The calls always went to the newsroom and, after a while, the reporters could tell. “Charlie, “ they would say, “You’ve got a call. It’s one of those calls.” I think I got them because, on air, I considered the babies as the primary victims of abortion and women as the secondary victims – and urged pro-lifers never to treat women who had had an abortion with contempt. The abortion industry already did that, seducing them with soothing phrases about how much they cared to lure them into an abortion, then discarding them like a used condom after they had their way with them. The stories I heard were heart-breaking, women who told me how their boyfriends or parents had pressured or forced them into getting an abortion. Several told me how the “womens’ center” assured them this was just a blob of tissue – and they believed it until they glimpsed their baby’s broken remains before the ‘doctor’ got them off the tray. They all felt guilty and abandoned, a terrible sense of quiet desperation they rarely spoke at all of. I came to think of abortion as a hole in the heart of women who suffered it, a wound that would not heal. In some it manifested as deep, unending and unvoiced guilt. In others, it manifested as a passionate advocacy for abortion in a desperate effort to convince themselves it was okay. I always finished the conversation by telling the women that their child was in heaven and wanted more than anything to be re-united with them there – so do not despair, talk to your Priest or Pastor and seek forgiveness for your error that you may, indeed, joyfully be re-united with your child in the next life. I once had a young woman who had passionately debated the subject with me in the studio on air. She followed me out to the car continuing the argument. Suddenly, I was inspired to repeat the same thing I told all the women who called me to share their grief. The young woman started shaking, burst into tears and hugged me. I wish I could tell you some satisfying ending to that story, but I never encountered her again, though I pray for her from time to time. I was so thankful for the formation of Rachel’s Vineyard, which helps women who have had abortions recover from the sorrow and guilt of it.Before he was president, Abraham Lincoln wrote a compelling fragment in a private journal. He said he despised slavery for the major three types of violence it did:First, the obvious violence it does to the enslaved.Second, the violence it had done to civil discourse in the country.Third, the violence it did to the slaveholder, who had to desperately deaden his conscience to justify what he was doing.I completely concur – and may the violence of abortion pass away as completely as the violence of slavery did over a century and a half ago.*********Just a few weeks left in our Easter fundraising campaign for CORAC. God bless you all for your generosity. We can pay the bills for the next couple of months and keep the instructional videos in health and well-being and gardening and home skills, while preparing to do some of the same for ham radios. We will keep connecting people across the country with each other, to be a sign of hope to each other and to our increasingly battered world. I expect to have the Brazen Serpent Prayer Cards available within, maybe, a month. You can donate here or send a check to the address at bottom. I hit the road again in about a week and a half. I will speak in Colorado Springs on Saturday, May 21 and then in Las Cruces, New Mexico on Wednesday, June 1.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Charlie has engaged in discussion the last few days with some pro-abortion folks on Twitter. It has been simultaneously frustrating, enlightening and a little heartening. Some friends say it won’t be long before Twitter bans him for some bit of fact they don’t like. We’ll see. The winds of change are blowing there, but the deal has not yet been consummated.The conversation is frustrating because of the enormous amount of logical fallacies, misinformation, ad hominems, and bald assertions masquerading as facts or evidence coming from the pro-abortion side.
Will the voters channel their furor at this regime of lies
into an unprecedented turnout at the polls in November?
By: Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness
May 8, 2022
A large majority of Americans now have no confidence in Joe Biden and his administration, which often polls below 40 percent, with negatives nearing 60 percent.
Despite the 15-month catastrophe of his regime, the level of his unpopularity remains understandable but still remarkable. After all, in 2020 voters already knew well of his cognitive deficits and the radicalism of his agenda. They saw both clearly starting in 2019 and during the 2020 Democratic primaries, the primary debates, and the general election.
So what did Biden’s voters imagine would happen when a cognitively challenged president, controlled by hard-Left subordinates, entered office—other than what he has done?
Now, as then, the media is fused to the progressive agenda and does—and did—its best to turn a non-compos mentis Biden into a bite-your-lip centrist empath in the Bill Clinton “I feel your pain” mode.
The American people know that on every occasion their president speaks, he will slur his words at best. At worst, he will have little idea where he is, where he has been, or what he is supposed to be saying or doing. When he is momentarily cognizant, he is at his meanest, or he simply makes things up.
Our new normal of a mentally incapacitated president is not entirely new in American history—Woodrow Wilson was an invalid during the last months of his presidency. But Wilson’s condition was well hidden. Quite novel is the idea that the American people know the man in the White House is cognitively disabled and simply expect him to confirm that bleak diagnosis each time he opens his mouth.
If Donald Trump exaggerated, Biden flat out lies daily. His most recent untruth was his assertion that the MAGA movement represents “the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history.” Biden cannot really believe that roughly half the country is now more dangerous than Antifa, Black Lives Matter, the Weathermen, the American Nazi Party, the American Communist Party, and the Ku Klux Klan. And this comes from the mythically moderate “good old Joe from Scranton”?
The bullied people also know the Biden problem has no remedy. The 25th Amendment that Democrats and the Left raised nonstop in efforts to remove Trump—from the Rosenstein-McCabe wear-a-wire embarrassment and former Yale psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee’s congressional tomfoolery to the incessant Montreal Cognitive Assessment demands—won’t apply to Biden.
Either the media will continue to rebrand his incapacity as Ciceronian eloquence or it will privately gloat that Kamala Harris is so off-putting, so uninformed, so unpopular that the people would prefer an amnesiac Biden to a nonimpaired Harris. The truth is the three doyens of Democratic progressivism—Joe Biden, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)—all struggle with cognitive decline and rely heavily upon the media and the Democratic Party’s political attack machine to enjoy asymmetrical exemption. (Though, in Feinstein’s case, her support is wavering.)
Americans feel there is no remedy for this downward spiral until November. To get a sense of their dilemma, imagine a Richard Nixon in 1973 caught lying during Watergate but with Spiro Agnew waiting in the wings without a trace of scandal—except with one difference: the current media is now attacking not the president’s shortcomings, but the president’s critics who point them out.
Even if the Republicans were to win a 60-vote majority in the Senate, they would hesitate to impeach Biden simply because Harris is a more frightening prospect. And some Marquess of Queensberry centrist RINOs would not wish to codify the Democrats’ new standard of impeaching an opposition president the minute he loses the House of Representatives in his first midterm.
Most of the country has awakened to the fact that the Trump-Russia collusion story was essentially a Hillary Clinton campaign effort to destroy a political opponent, a presidential transition, and a presidency. And they know Clinton will never be indicted for her conspiracies and racketeering even if her minions rat her out to seek reduced charges for themselves.
That hoax was followed by an impeachment vote over a phone call based on two more lies:
1) the Biden family was neither corrupt nor used Joe Biden’s office as vice president, and his future political career to leverage payments from Ukraine, and
2) Donald Trump canceled military aid to Ukraine rather than sending them critical Javelin anti-tank missiles put on hold by the Obama Administration.
Americans know Google, Facebook, and Twitter censors were all enlisted in the effort to destroy a former president and his outspoken supporters. And they know there is no real remedy unless two or three more enlightened billionaires follow Elon Musk’s lead.
If Roe v. Wade were to be repealed, many Americans in red states will remain appalled that some blue states will allow abortions, especially late-term abortions after 22 weeks. But nearly all will accept the rule of constitutional democracy and thus the states’ rights to make their own laws that do not conflict with federal legislation as passed by Congress and signed by the president.
These red-state citizens know the opposite is certainly not true: blue state officials will do all they can to attack those who disagree with them, who consider abortion the destruction of human life in the womb. Expect more California-style official travel bans.
Americans know that the Department of Homeland Security’s new “Disinformation Governance Board” will, by design, be run by an arch-disinformationist Nina Jankowicz. The board’s entire purpose is to coordinate with the media to brand oppositional expressions as “hate speech” and “mis-, dis-, and mal-information” so that critics preemptively self-censor and moderate their opposition.
In this regard, they know that the Biden regime awards positions of great power in the U.S. government to those who do the very opposite of the intended offices’ purview. The goal is pure nihilism.
Thus, a mythographer and propagandist will adjudicate “truth.” A homeland security secretary will do his best to make the border entirely insecure. The secretary of transportation will see to it that freeways and bridges are not built. The department of energy’s task will be to ensure less energy is produced and its transportation is more expensive and more dangerous than ever. And the secretary of defense will oversee the most humiliating retreat in modern American history in Afghanistan as he cites our chief existential threat to be either climate change or “white supremacists.”
The people know the Left eventually always loses the support of the voters. But leftists still believe they can achieve and retain power, given that they control America’s cultural and informational institutions.
The Left remains hell-bent on radically changing the demography of the United States. And it always manufactures new hysterias—from the claim that Trump was “100 percent responsible” for every American death during the COVID-19 pandemic, to border officers “whipping” innocent illegal aliens, to Vladimir Putin single-handedly causing sky-high gas prices and the worst inflation since the 1970s. Each week brings another prairie fire hysteria. No sooner than it is exposed and refuted, and the Left is on to another conflagration.
Americans have a rough idea that the tragic death of George Floyd was not proof of an epidemic of lethal police shootings of black males. Yet that single death set off the entire woke conflagration of 2020 and, with the hysterias of the lockdowns, has nearly wrecked the country.
Yet in 2021, out of more than 10 million arrests in the United States, police shot about six unarmed black men. The same year, 346 police officers were shot, 63 fatally—to left-wing indifference. Moreover, roughly 8,000 blacks were murdered mostly by other blacks—to callous media and political silence. Thousands of lost black lives mattered little—except the fewer than 1 in 1,000 of that total who were tragically and lethally shot while unarmed by police.
Finally, Americans were angry at the rioting inside the Capitol on January 6, 2021. But they cannot forgive the needless lies surrounding that illegal act in an effort to fabricate an insurrection out of a spontaneous buffoonish riot.
So they recoil at the lies about Officer Brian Sicknick’s death. They are baffled about the silence surrounding the number of FBI informants among the January 6 protestors. They are angry about the lies surrounding the lethal shooting of an unarmed Ashli Babbitt. They don’t understand the refusal to release all videos or communications pertinent to the government’s reaction to the riot. And they do not fathom the disproportionate treatment of those charged with unlawfully entering the Capitol versus those 14,000 arrested during the summer of 2020 when rioting led to more than 35 deaths, some 1,500 police officer injuries, and $2 billion in property damage and massive looting.
They shake their heads when Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) directly threatened two Supreme Court Justices by name outside the court, ginning up an angry protest group at the doors. They are baffled that the White House press secretary sees nothing wrong with disseminating the private addresses of Justices to ensure mobs of protestors show up at their homes to intimidate them.
Of course, exasperated Americans are furious over the open border. They are angry their lives are being insidiously destroyed by the Biden inflation and energy prices. They are humiliated by the Biden debacle in Afghanistan and angrier still over his spiking crime wave and his mean-spirited senility. They resent Biden’s efforts to blame all these self-inflicted miseries on Donald Trump, or the “Putin price hikes” or the inability of a presidency to do anything about supposedly organic forces beyond his purview.
But behind the popular furor is a sense of impotence in the face of the untruth they are assaulted with day after day. In other words, bullied Americans are angry that people who control the nation’s institutions deliberately mislead them and do so because they hate them.
Let us hope that they channel this historic exasperation in November in a manner we have never seen before in the modern era.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on “If Donald Trump exaggerated, Biden flat out lies daily. His most recent untruth was his assertion that the MAGA movement represents “the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history.” Biden cannot really believe that roughly half the country is now more dangerous than Antifa, Black Lives Matter, the Weathermen, the American Nazi Party, the American Communist Party, and the Ku Klux Klan. And this comes from the mythically moderate “good old Joe from Scranton”?
Schumer’s Abortion Bill Guts Religious Liberty May 10, 2022 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Sen. Chuck Schumer’s abortion bill: On May 11, Sen. Chuck Schumer will introduce the Women’s Health Protection Act, the most radical pro-abortion bill ever written. It would effectively guarantee abortion-on-demand. It would also gut First Amendment protections for religious liberty by exempting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Schumer epitomizes the Democratic Party on abortion and religious liberty. Not too long ago, the Democratic Party was cautiously pro-abortion. Two days after becoming president in 1993, Bill Clinton said, “Our vision should be of an America where abortion is safe and legal but rare.” When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008, she repeated this line, adding, “By rare, I mean rare.” Rare no more. There is not an abortion today that most Democrats wouldn’t support. Worse, they went from being pro-religious liberty to anti-religious liberty. On March 11, 1993, less than two months after President Clinton carved out a relatively moderate stance on abortion, Rep. Chuck Schumer introduced RFRA in the House; Sen. Ted Kennedy broached it in the Senate. The final vote: it passed unanimously in the House and the vote in the Senate was 97-3. Today, Schumer is leading the fight to eradicate the bill he once championed. Ironically, he is now on the side of the three who voted against RFRA in 1993. That puts him in bad company. Two of them—Sen. Jesse Helms and Sen. Robert Byrd—were white racists. Helms said the 1964 Civil Rights Act was “the single most dangerous piece of legislation ever introduced in the Congress,” and Byrd was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. While Schumer is not a racist, his backward thinking on religious liberty is identical to that of Helms and Byrd. Commenting on RFRA, President Clinton, who signed the bill, said that the “fundamental right of all people” to “follow our own personal beliefs” and “practice our faith freely and openly” is “essential to our well-being.” What Schumer said was even more dramatic. Schumer spoke from the floor of the House on May 11, 1993, saying that “We all know that the First Amendment guarantees the right of the free exercise of religion. Traditionally the Supreme Court interpreted that guarantee to mean religious freedom can be infringed only when the government has a compelling interest in doing so.” He went on to say that a 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith, changed that tradition, promulgating a new standard where “government only has to show a legitimate interest in order to burden religion.” It was this relatively weak protection that RFRA rectified. Schumer now thinks that he went too far in promoting religious liberty. In particular, he has a problem with religious liberty whenever it collides with issues of sexuality. His interest in abortion and gay rights clearly supersedes his interest in religious liberty, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution explicitly mentions the free exercise of religion while saying nothing about abortion and gay rights. The evolution of Schumer, and the Democratic Party that he epitomizes, has radically turned against life and liberty. It is no longer even a figment of its former self.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on LORD, PLEASE PROTECT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER!!!!
They thought we’d never find out. They were wrong.
“2000 Mules,” a documentary film created by Dinesh D’Souza, exposes widespread, coordinated voter fraud in the 2020 election, sufficient to change the overall outcome. Drawing on research provided by the election integrity group True the Vote, “2000 Mules” offers two types of evidence: geotracking and video. The geotracking evidence, based on a database of 10 trillion cell phone pings, exposes an elaborate network of paid professional operatives called mules delivering fraudulent and illegal votes to mail-in dropboxes in the five key states where the election was decided. Video evidence, obtained from official surveillance cameras installed by the states themselves, confirms the geotracking evidence. The movie concludes by exploring numerous ways to prevent the fraud from happening again.
ReplayMute
Loaded: 99.95%
1xPlayback RateCaptionsFullscreen
If you want to watch the full video, please Purchase or Support Annually
Might Francis’s “Adulterous Persons” receiving Communion be a Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit for Francis Catholics?
The sin of sodomy is built around sexual temptation. One chooses to either engage in the act or to resist it. It’s that simple. To speak of “homosexual persons” is to reduce the individual to identity with sin and sinful tendencies. We may as well speak of “murderous persons,” or “cannibalistic persons,” “or pedophilic persons,” or “necrophilic persons” or “bestiphilic persons.” Would it be appropriate for prelates of the Church to discuss whether or not men who notoriously engage in sexual activities with their pets should be integrated into the Catholic community, or if they should be permitted to receive Holy Communion with their abused pet in their arms? – Lepanto Institute website
“Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a ‘right’ to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects Redemption. One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one’s conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one’s life. This is a state of spiritual ruin, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not allow one to escape from one’s self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission of sins.” – Pope John Paul II in DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM On the Holy Spirit in the Life
Francis on January 13 said his synod’s pastoral method of teaching has as his “main protagonist.. the Holy Spirit”:
“Synodality is not even the search for majority consensus, this is done by a parliament, as is done in politics. It is not a plan, a program to be implemented.”
“No. It is a style to be adopted, in which the main protagonist is the Holy Spirit. [https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250094/pope-francis-synodality-is-not-a-search-for-majority-consensus]
Vox explained that Francis’s so-called “Holy Spirit” method appears to be a “disingenuous workaround”:
Douthat characterizes Francis’s approach to divorced-and-remarried [adulterous] couples and the Eucharist as something of a disingenuous workaround. For Douthat, Francis is trying to have it both ways — offering conservatives “the formal teaching of the church” while giving liberals “a permission slip for pastoral experiments.”
[…]
one that essentially licensed a division between formal church teaching and parish practice. “[By] issuing such an ambiguous document,” Douthat writes, “Pope Francis had pushed Catholicism toward … devolution, toward a geographical and cultural variation in what his church would teach.” [https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/5/17189564/ross-douthat-francis-pope-conservative-catholic-amoris-laetitita]
Fr. John Hunwicke seems to possibly imply that this Francis method may be associated with “Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit” in his “The Holy Spirit” post:
I was very glad to read the recent text delivered by PF in which he encouraged the disregarding of ancient traditions, as the Holy Spirit leads us on. I will not criticise his words, because, as you would expect, Father Zed has already done one of his own very thorough demolition job.I welcomed PF’s words because they provided yet more material for my thesis that this sort of talk, and these sorts of claims, are at the very heart of the Error of Begoglianism; already condemned as it is in the decrees about the Roman Pontificate in the documents of the First Vatican Council. And I am afraid that I might be betrayed into letting my weakness for satirical rhetoric so run away with me that I might make a joke which counted as Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit.[http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-holy-spirit.html]
Might it be “Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit” for Francis and his synods to discuss or teach that Communion is for adulterers? This brings us to the Lepanto Institute website’s question for Francis, If the “Synod Fathers Discuss Homosexuality. What about Necrophilia and Bestiality?”:
Our prelates are playing an extremely dangerous game with the Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord.
Catholics around the world are sitting on pins and needles while bishops and cardinals in Rome play word games with Catholic moral teaching. The supreme irony here is that while the faithful are desperately looking for clearly defined teaching from the supreme authority of the Church, the faithful are being told in press conferences that authority should be deferred to local ordinaries to make decisions on how to deal with issues like homosexuality and divorce.
The most contentious issues being discussed at this synod, as indicated in last year’s Midterm Report,are:
Positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitation
Caring for broken families (separated couples, the divorced who have not remarried, the divorced and remarried)
Providing for homosexual persons
All of this is being discussed, of course, under the guise of “mercy.”
[…]
And on the one year anniversary of last year’s midterm report, Benedictine Jeremias Schröder, the archabbot president of the Congregation of Sant’Ottilia suggested that the social acceptance of homosexuality was culturally diverse, and so therefore bishops conferences should be allowed to “formulate pastoral responses that are in tune with what can be preached and announced and lived in a different context.”
Let’s try to put this all in perspective. Here, on the ground level, prelates and laity are all scratching their heads about how to molly-coddle adulterers and sodomites while simultaneously maintaining the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church. We’ll start with the question of “homosexual persons.”
First of all, there is no such thing as a “homosexual person.” The inerrant Word of God in the Book of Genesis says, “God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27). Again, Genesis says, “This is the record of the descendants of Adam. When God created human beings, he made them in the likeness of God; he created them male and female.” (Genesis 5:1-2) Our Blessed Lord, in the Gospel of Mark, quoted this line from Genesis, explaining the PURPOSE for which man was created male and female, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.” (Mark 10:6-8) Matthew tells of this same account in the 19th chapter of his Gospel.
Mankind was created by God with two, and ONLY two genders. Male and female. These genders were created with the purpose of marriage. As such, homosexual acts and tendencies are completely contrary to the created order, so there is no such thing as a “homosexual person.”
The sin of sodomy is built around sexual temptation. One chooses to either engage in the act or to resist it. It’s that simple. To speak of “homosexual persons” is to reduce the individual to identity with sin and sinful tendencies. We may as well speak of “murderous persons,” or “cannibalistic persons,” “or pedophilic persons,” or “necrophilic persons” or “bestiphilic persons.” Would it be appropriate for prelates of the Church to discuss whether or not men who notoriously engage in sexual activities with their pets should be integrated into the Catholic community, or if they should be permitted to receive Holy Communion with their abused pet in their arms? [https://lepantoin.org/synod-fathers-discuss-homosexuality-what-about-necrophilia-and-bestiality/]
If Francis is going to speak of “adulterous persons” receiving Communion, why shouldn’t “murderous persons” or “cannibalistic persons” “or pedophilic persons” or “necrophilic persons” or “bestiphilic persons” receive Communion?
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
The sin of sodomy is built around sexual temptation. One chooses to either engage in the act or to resist it. It’s that simple. To speak of “homosexual persons” is to reduce the individual to identity with sin and sinful tendencies. We may as well speak of “murderous persons,” or “cannibalistic persons,” “or pedophilic persons,” or “necrophilic persons” or “bestiphilic persons.” Would it be appropriate for prelates of the Church to discuss whether or not men who notoriously engage in sexual activities with their pets should be integrated into the Catholic community, or if they should be permitted to receive Holy Communion with their abused pet in their arms? – Lepanto Institute website “Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a ‘right’ to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects Redemption.One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one’s conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one’s life. This is a state of spiritual ruin, because blasphemy against the Holy Spiritdoes not allow one to escape from one’s self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission of sins.” – Pope John Paul II in DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM On the Holy Spirit in the Life Francis on January 13 said his synod’s pastoral method of teaching has as his “main protagonist.. the Holy Spirit”:“Synodality is not even the search for majority consensus, this is done by a parliament, as is done in politics. It is not a plan, a program to be implemented.” [https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250094/pope-francis-synodality-is-not-a-search-for-majority-consensus]“No. It is a style to be adopted, in which the main protagonist is the Holy Spirit. Vox explained that Francis’s so-called “Holy Spirit” method appears to be a “disingenuous workaround”:Douthat characterizes Francis’s approach to divorced-and-remarried [adulterous] couples and the Eucharist as something of a disingenuous workaround. For Douthat, Francis is trying to have it both ways — offering conservatives “the formal teaching of the church” while giving liberals “a permission slip for pastoral experiments.”[…][https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/5/17189564/ross-douthat-francis-pope-conservative-catholic-amoris-laetitita]one that essentially licensed a division between formal church teaching and parish practice. “[By] issuing such an ambiguous document,” Douthat writes, “Pope Francis had pushed Catholicism toward … devolution, toward a geographical and cultural variation in what his church would teach.” Fr. John Hunwicke seems to possibly imply that this Francis method may be associated with “Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit” in his “The Holy Spirit” post:I was very glad to read the recent text delivered by PF in which he encouraged the disregarding of ancient traditions, as the Holy Spirit leads us on. I will not criticise his words, because, as you would expect, Father Zed has already done one of his own very thorough demolition job.[http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-holy-spirit.html]I welcomed PF’s words because they provided yet more material for my thesis that this sort of talk, and these sorts of claims, are at the very heart of the Error of Begoglianism; already condemned as it is in the decrees about the Roman Pontificate in the documents of the First Vatican Council. And I am afraid that I might be betrayed into letting my weakness for satirical rhetoric so run away with me that I might make a joke which counted as Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit.Might it be “Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit” for Francis and his synods to discuss or teach that Communion is for adulterers? This brings us to the Lepanto Institute website’s question for Francis, If the “Synod Fathers Discuss Homosexuality. What about Necrophilia and Bestiality?”:Our prelates are playing an extremely dangerous game with the Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord.Catholics around the world are sitting on pins and needles while bishops and cardinals in Rome play word games with Catholic moral teaching. The supreme irony here is that while the faithful are desperately looking for clearly defined teaching from the supreme authority of the Church, the faithful are beingthat authority should be deferred to local ordinaries to make decisions on how to deal with issues like homosexuality and divorce.told in press conferencesThe most contentious issues being discussed at this synod, as indicated in last year’sare:Midterm Report,Positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitationCaring for broken families (separated couples, the divorced who have not remarried, the divorced and remarried)Providing for homosexual personsAll of this is being discussed, of course, under the guise of “mercy.” […]And on the one year anniversary of last year’s midterm report, Benedictine Jeremias Schröder, the archabbot president of the Congregation of Sant’Ottilia suggested that the social acceptance of homosexuality was culturally diverse, and so therefore bishops conferences should be allowed to “formulate pastoral responses that are in tune with what can be preached and announced and lived in a different context.”Let’s try to put this all in perspective. Here, on the ground level, prelates and laity are all scratching their heads about how to molly-coddle adulterers and sodomites while simultaneously maintaining the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church. We’ll start with the question of “homosexual persons.”First of all, there is no such thing as a “homosexual person.” The inerrant Word of God in the Book of Genesis says, “God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them;.” (Genesis 1:27). Again, Genesis says, “This is the record of the descendants of Adam. When God created human beings, he made them in the likeness of God;” (Genesis 5:1-2) Our Blessed Lord, in the Gospel of Mark, quoted this line from Genesis, explaining the PURPOSE for which man was created male and female, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.” (Mark 10:6-8) Matthew tells of this same account in the 19chapter of his Gospel. male and female he created them he created them male and female.God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife]thMankind was created by God with two, and ONLY two genders. Male and female. These genders were created with the purpose of marriage. As such, homosexual acts and tendencies are completely contrary to the created order, so there is no such thing as a “homosexual person.”[https://lepantoin.org/synod-fathers-discuss-homosexuality-what-about-necrophilia-and-bestiality/]The sin of sodomy is built around sexual temptation. One chooses to either engage in the act or to resist it. It’s that simple. To speak of “homosexual persons” is to reduce the individual to identity with sin and sinful tendencies. We may as well speak of “murderous persons,” or “cannibalistic persons,” “or pedophilic persons,” or “necrophilic persons” or “bestiphilic persons.” Would it be appropriate for prelates of the Church to discuss whether or not men who notoriously engage in sexual activities with their pets should be integrated into the Catholic community, or if they should be permitted to receive Holy Communion with their abused pet in their arms? If Francis is going to speak of “adulterous persons” receiving Communion, why shouldn’treceive Communion? or “cannibalistic persons” “or pedophilic persons” or “necrophilic persons” or “bestiphilic persons”“murderous persons” Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia. Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.Francis Notes:- Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:”[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Joe Biden’s statements continue to be a major problem for Americans and especially for Catholics.
We have seen this across the board with Biden, including crucial remarks about Vladimir Putin and Russia, where he constantly needs correction by his staff. But for Catholics, Biden has been particularly damaging on moral-cultural issues, where he is creating embarrassment and scandal for his Church. His destructive statements constitute a long list, but to make this article simple, let’s stick with merely the most recent.
On the matter of unborn human life, Biden just dropped this whopper on the general public and people of his Church: “Roe says what all basic mainstream religions have historically concluded, that the existence of a human life and being is a question. Is it at the moment of conception? Is it six months? Is it six weeks? Is it quickening, like Aquinas argued?”
This assertion from Biden is particularly egregious. Americans definitely don’t want this man speaking as an authority on where “all” mainstream religions define the existence of life, particularly given that, for starters, he evidently doesn’t know where his own religion stands. Go online and you’ll find numerous Protestants correcting Biden.
What Biden said is obviously not what Biden’s Catholic Church teaches. This is not theology according to the Catechism or the Scriptures. I have long accepted the suffering task of following Speaker Nancy Pelosi—another lifelong and “pro-choice” Catholic—and I can tell you that Biden is echoing here not the theology of his Church but the theology of Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi has long said the same thing, in her case invoking not Aquinas but Augustine. In August 2008, when asked, “When does life begin?” by Tom Brokaw on NBC’s Meet the Press, Pelosi authoritatively spoke for her Church and even the Church Fathers. “I would say that, as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time,” related a scholarly Pelosi to a national TV audience. “And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator—Saint Augustine—said at three months. We don’t know. The point is that it shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to choose.”
I would recommend to the Catholic president of the United States to listen to his Catechism rather than Nancy Pelosi.
Quite interestingly, then-Senator Joe Biden, back in 2008, was likewise asked by Tom Brokaw about when life begins. He was asked two weeks after Brokaw had asked Pelosi, as a follow up to Pelosi’s answer. Biden’s answer then was different, and it has been forgotten in the current outrage over his statement last week.
It was September 7, 2008, shortly before the presidential election. Biden appeared on Meet the Press, where he was asked by Brokaw: “If Senator Obama comes to you and says, ‘When does life begin? Help me out here, Joe,’ as a Roman Catholic, what would you say to him?” Here was Biden’s answer:
I’d say, “Look, I know when it begins for me.” It’s a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I’m prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths—Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others—who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They’re intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life—I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.
Note Biden’s response: “I know when it begins for me.” He said forcefully: “For me, as a Roman Catholic, I am prepared to accept the teachings of my church.”
What did that mean?
Biden translated, explaining that while he personally believed (along with his Church) that life begins “at the moment of conception,” other people of other faiths have different definitions. Thus, “For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am, seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.”
Biden’s judgment, of course, was that even though life begins at conception, a mother should have the legal right nonetheless to terminate that life. Needless to say, this is not the teaching of his Church.
The bishops didn’t hesitate to respond to Biden at the time. Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, issued a statement saying that Biden’s remarks do “not reflect Catholic teaching.” The bishops responded by noting that the Church does not teach that life begins at conception “as a matter of faith” but, rather, “as a matter of objective fact.”
Biden also caught the bishops’ attention with his remark to Brokaw about how a public official like himself allegedly cannot “impose” his moral values on other Americans. This is one of the nonsensical claims that liberals reserve exclusively for issues like abortion and not for, say, civil rights, the environment, tax cuts, endless matters of “social justice,” and on and on.
Biden’s bishop, Michael Saltarelli, was in no mood for that one, stating: “No one today would accept this statement from any public servant: ‘I am personally opposed to human slavery and racism but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.’ Likewise, none of us should accept this statement from any public servant: ‘I am personally opposed to abortion but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.’”
Has Biden changed his understanding since 2008, or is he now just confused? The answer is likely both. He continues to radicalize on abortion, just as in June 2019 he flipped his lifelong support of the Hyde Amendment under the relentless badgering of a hysterical Elizabeth Warren and a scowling Kamala Harris.
Joe Biden has become a cultural radical across the board. Look at his stance on “LGBTQIA+” issues. Again, there have been so many Biden statements. To cite merely one from recent weeks, when he celebrated “Transgender Day of Visibility,” Biden asserted: “To everyone celebrating Transgender Day of Visibility, I want you to know that your president sees you—Jill, Kamala, Doug, our entire administration sees you—for who you are: made an image of God and deserving of dignity, respect and support.”
This was a striking statement. For the record, of course everyone is made in the image of God and deserving of dignity and respect. That includes every individual struggling with gender-identity issues. No one should say that a transgender person was not made in the image of God. But this is a curious statement to make in the context of seeking to attempt to change one’s God-given gender. God made us male and female (see: Genesis).
Among these, Biden’s abortion statements could not come at a worse time, as the nation readies for the clear possibility that the Supreme Court will overrule Roe v. Wade. The pro-life Catholic justices are being vilified and targeted by abortion fanatics. Those forces will not be condemning Joe Biden. He is their ally, so much so that he tosses around inaccurate theological-historical statements about his Church and human life.
His allies, of course, include the pro-life Catholics who voted for him in 2020. I wrote an article for Crisis last September on how those Catholics need to make reparation by contacting the White House and urging Biden to stop creating scandal like this. I pleaded with those Catholics to do so. I regretted that they very likely would not.
Biden is their guy, the man they elected, and they have a moral responsibility to hold him accountable. They need to make amends, to try to help fix this situation, for the good of their Church, their country, and first and foremost for the unborn. “Silently accepting this affront is not an option,” I wrote. “If you do nothing, you will only make the situation—and your Catholic president—worse. And really, why wouldn’t you do something?”
Well, Biden is getting much worse.
I again ask those pro-life Catholics who voted for Biden: Have you sent even one email or made one phone call to the White House? Are you doing something?
If I voted for a Catholic causing this kind of damaged, I would be sick. At the very least, I’d accept the obligation to try to make things a little better. Please, help. This is scandalous.
[Photo Credit: AFP via Getty Images]
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on We have seen this across the board with Biden, including crucial remarks about Vladimir Putin and Russia, where he constantly needs correction by his staff. But for Catholics, Biden has been particularly damaging on moral-cultural issues, where he is creating embarrassment and scandal for his Church
AThe World Health Organization has an official plan for 10 years of infectious diseases, from 2020 to 2030
THE PLAN
The World Health Organization has an official plan for 10 years of ongoing infectious diseases. From 2020 to 2030: a decade of pandemics. That was revealed by Marion Koopmans, a WHO virologist from the Netherlands who did research at the notorious Wuhan biolab. She said on Dutch television that the World Health Organization has been working on this agenda for a long time.
The WHO prepared an official agenda for a decade of infectious diseases.
At the same time the WHO created the Pandemic Treaty, which gives them complete totalitarian control over all the nations in the world, whenever the WHO declares a pandemic… something they can do whenever they want, based on any test they choose. Watch THE PLAN now!
The person who technically owns the World Health Organization is Bill Gates, also the #1 vaccine dealer in the world. He was selected by the financial elite to direct the agenda to mass inject all of humanity multiple times every year. Gates multiplied his personal fortune to hundreds of billions of dollars, by selling vaccines.
While discussing the next pandemic, both Bill and his former wife Melinda had the most inhumane response… they smiled, grinned and chuckled! Watch THE PLAN now!
Can you imagine anyone expressing intense enjoyment about the idea of a next pandemic?
The World Health Organization has an official plan for 10 years of ongoing infectious diseases. From 2020 to 2030: a decade of pandemics. That was revealed by Marion Koopmans, a WHO virologist from the Netherlands who did research at the notorious Wuhan biolab. She said on Dutch television that the World Health Organization has been working on this agenda for a long time.
The WHO prepared an official agenda for a decade of infectious diseases.
At the same time the WHO created the Pandemic Treaty, which gives them complete totalitarian control over all the nations in the world, whenever the WHO declares a pandemic… something they can do whenever they want, based on any test they choose.
The person who technically owns the World Health Organization is Bill Gates, also the #1 vaccine dealer in the world. He was selected by the financial elite to direct the agenda to mass inject all of humanity multiple times every year. Gates multiplied his personal fortune to hundreds of billions of dollars, by selling vaccines. While discussing the next pandemic, both Bill and his former wife Melinda had the most inhumane response… they smiled, grinned and chuckled!
Can you imagine anyone expressing intense enjoyment about the idea of a next pandemic?
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION REVEALS ITS PLAN FOR OUR NEXT TEN YEARS OF SUBJECTION TO ITS OFFICIAL PLAN FOR HOW WE WILL LIVE UNDER THEIR RULES FOR COPING WITH FUTURE PANDEMICS
You must be logged in to post a comment.